Allowed

Mohd. Saif v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 May 2023CRLP/7828/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging the validity of a notice under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 issued to the petitioner. The notice was set aside for not containing material allegations, and the petition was disposed of relying on a prior decision of this court.

What did the court decide?

The notice dated 26.4.2023 is set aside. Respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.

Mohd. Saif Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:120088-DB

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7828 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohd. Saif Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed against the notice dated 26.4.2023 under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970. It has been stated that nothing more than the mention of crime number and sections have been given in the notice. No material allegation has been made on the basis of which the case could have proceeded or the petitioner could have replied. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that simply mentioning of only case crime number does not satisfy the test of a valid notice under section 3(1) of the aforementioned Act. A general nature of material allegation has only been made. He has submitted that a notice is the foundation of proceedings and if the notice does not contain material allegations, no reply can be given. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.6103 of 2023 (Azhar vs. State of U.P. & Anr., decided on 20.4.2023).

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the writ petition and submitted that such defects in the notice does not handicap the petitioner in giving his reply. He further submits that it is evident from the notice itself that the petitioner would encourage people around him to commit anti-social activities. He has further submitted that the notice is sufficient for the petitioner to give a reply.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 20.4.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.6103 of 2023.

¶10

Under such circumstances, the notice dated 26.4.2023 is setaside. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to issue a

¶11

fresh notice in accordance with law.

¶12

With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed .

¶13

Order Date :- 29.5.2023 S. Singh

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Saif v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Saif v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Vs State of U.P.

Rajnish Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Baijnath Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shabi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chetram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sandeep and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others